Skip to main content
Log in

Prognostic outcomes and risk factors for recurrence after laser vaporization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a single-center retrospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is a precancerous lesion that may progress to invasive cervical cancer without intervention. We aim to examine the prognostic outcomes and risk factors for recurrence after laser vaporization for CIN 3, CIN 2 with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and CIN 1 persisting for more than 2 years.

Methods

Between 2008 and 2016, a total of 1070 patients underwent cervical laser vaporization using a carbon dioxide laser. We performed a retrospective review of their medical records to assess their clinical characteristics, pathologic factors, and prognostic outcomes.

Results

The mean patient age was 34 years (range 18–64 years). The preoperative diagnosis was CIN 1 in 27 patients, CIN 2 in 485 patients, and CIN 3 in 558 patients. Over a median follow-up period of 15 months, the 2-year recurrence rate was 18.9%, and the 5-year recurrence rate was 46.5%. The 2-year retreatment rate was 12.6%, and the 5-year retreatment rate was 30.5%. We diagnosed 9 patients with invasive cancer after treatment; all patients underwent combined multidisciplinary treatment, and there were no deaths during follow-up. The recurrence-free interval was correlated with patient age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.028; 95% CI 1.005–1.051; P = 0.0167), body mass index (HR, 1.052; 95% CI 1.008–1.098; P = 0.0191), and glandular involvement (HR, 1.962; 95% CI 1.353–2.846; P = 0.0004).

Conclusions

Cervical laser vaporization is effective and useful for patients with CIN who wish to preserve fertility. However, patients with glandular involvement, older age, and higher body weight require close follow-up for recurrence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J et al (2002) (2005) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 55(2):74–108. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study G, Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S et al (2003) Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 348(6):518–527. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brianti P, De Flammineis E, Mercuri SR (2017) Review of HPV-related diseases and cancers. New Microbiol 40(2):80–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ostör AG (1993) Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 12(2):186–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ginsburg O, Bray F, Coleman MP et al (2017) The global burden of women’s cancers: a grand challenge in global health. The Lancet 389(10071):847–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31392-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sawaya GF, Smith-McCune K, Kuppermann M (2019) Cervical cancer screening: more choices in 2019. JAMA 321(20):2018–2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.4595

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kocken M, Helmerhorst TJM, Berkhof J et al (2011) Risk of recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful treatment: a long-term multi-cohort study. Lancet Oncol 12(5):441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70078-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W et al (2004) Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA 291(17):2100–2106. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.17.2100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P et al (2006) Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 367(9509):489–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68181-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mathevet P, Chemali E, Roy M et al (2003) Long-term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 106(2):214–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(02)00245-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson MC, Hartley RB (1979) Cervical crypt involvement by intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol Surv 34(11):852–853. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-197911000-00031

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jordan JA, Woodman CB, Mylotte MJ et al (1985) The treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by laser vaporization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92(4):394–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb01114.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Partington CK, Turner MJ, Soutter WP et al (1989) Laser vaporization versus laser excision conization in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol 73:775–779

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Alvarez RD, Helm CW, Edwards RP et al (1994) Prospective randomized trial of LLETZ versus laser ablation in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 52(2):175–179. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dey P, Gibbs A, Arnold DF et al (2002) Loop diathermy excision compared with cervical laser vaporisation for the treatment of intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 109(4):381–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01277.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mariya T, Nishikawa A, Sogawa K et al (2016) Virological and cytological clearance in laser vaporization and conization for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 3. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 42(12):1808–1813. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Inaba K, Nagasaka K, Kawana K et al (2014) High-risk human papillomavirus correlates with recurrence after laser ablation for treatment of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a long-term follow-up retrospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40(2):554–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stentella P, Pace S, Villani C et al (1995) Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: carbon dioxide laser vaporization and conization. Our Exp Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 16(4):282–289

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Soutter WP, de Barros LA, Fletcher A et al (1997) Invasive cervical cancer after conservative therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Lancet 349(9057):978–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(96)08295-5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Soutter WP, Sasieni P, Panoskaltsis T (2006) Long-term risk of invasive cervical cancer after treatment of squamous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 118(8):2048–2055. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21604

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chew GK, Jandial L, Paraskevaidis E et al (1999) Pattern of CIN recurrence following laser ablation treatment: long-term follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 9(6):487–490. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1438.1999.99066.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Persad VL, Pierotic MA, Guijon FB (2001) Management of cervical neoplasia: a 13-year experience with cryotherapy and laser. J Low Genit Tract Dis 5(4):199–203. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-0976.2001.54002.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen JY, Wang ZL, Wang ZY et al (2018) The risk factors of residual lesions and recurrence of the high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) patients with positive-margin after conization. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(41):e12792. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Melnikow J, McGahan C, Sawaya GF et al (2009) Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(10):721–728. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp089

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Bogani G, Cromi A, Serati M et al (2015) Laparoscopic and vaginal approaches to hysterectomy in the obese. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 189:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Byun JM, Jeong DH, Kim YN et al (2018) Persistent HPV-16 infection leads to recurrence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(51):e13606. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013606

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Number JP19K09804).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideaki Yahata.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kodama, K., Yahata, H., Okugawa, K. et al. Prognostic outcomes and risk factors for recurrence after laser vaporization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a single-center retrospective study. Int J Clin Oncol 26, 770–776 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-020-01848-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-020-01848-x

Keywords

Navigation